The issue of
press intrusion into the private lives of common folk has once again reared its
ugly head in the past week – most notably in the case of the daughter of two
flight attendants from Berkshire, better known to most of us as Kate Middleton.
Of course,
unlike the sanctimonious tabloids (and "bored" sheets, like the
Guardian) that have spent seven days condemning the French, the Swedish, the
Danish and the Irish while writing relentless stories that include the keywords
"Kate Middleton", "topless", "nude" and
"photos" to deliberately attract disappointed red-blooded readers to
their rags, my publications have had the courage to print the royally racy
photos on the front page – and hang the consequences.
Like any
decision made at this level, it was not one taken lightly – after all, pap
shots of the Queen-in-waiting-in-not-very-much are not cheap. But of course
there is always an ethical question when a publication chooses to put famous
flesh to paper (not literally, that would be abhorrent), and I'd like to talk
you – my staff – through my thinking.
In short,
privacy does not exist in the 21st century. This is a price we pay for having
the Facebook and online Scrabble games at our fingertips via the shape of the
information super highway. Whereas once a hard-working celebrity could happily
indulge in the services of a discreet lady of the night and/or rent boy while
hoovering up cocaine in the privacy of their home with a relatively low chance
of being exposed, now everyone around them has the ability to document such
events and publish them to the world as it happens. We don't need the News of
the World to follow people around in 2012 to get a scoop, because there's
plenty of money grabbing "friends" willing to hang their
"celebrated" associates out to dry.
But what has
this got to do with paparazzi photographers snapping Kate Middleton over a
fence, Rupert, I hear you ask. Well, it's simple – once we accept privacy does
not and cannot exist in 2012, everything becomes fair game, not exclusively, but
especially, if it's in the public interest. And considering the response to
Boobgate, I think it's fairly clear that the public are interested in seeing
candid pictures of our Royal Family.
The Sun
justified running pictures of Prince Harry with his crown jewels on display by
claiming that he was at a party with people in possession of cameras, therefore
he was exposing himself (if you'll excuse the pun) to coverage of this sort.
They also suggested that because the images were circulating on the internet,
it was reasonable to publish the pictures in the paper. However, they stopped
short of running the pics of Kate. Why?
In my mind,
if someone is aware that they are in the public eye and then choose to sunbathe
topless outside in an age where they are also aware that long lens cameras
exist, they are as good as in public. There is only one way to ensure that
those pictures never make it into the press, and it's not injunctions, the
courts or the PCC … it's simply a bikini top, or an indoor sunbed.
As a senior
member of the media elite, I am aware that my competitors are always after a
compromising picture of me – that's why I don't walk around on my balcony in Ha
Noi with my dungeon gear on or a thousand dong note hanging out of my nose. I
keep my private life private, behind one-way glass in my futuristic
laser-guarded Victorian-style orangery – and that, because of the precautions I
take, is where it stays.
If your
computer gets a virus, but you're not running anti-virus software, who is to
blame? You are, because you've not taken reasonable steps to protect yourself
against something you know is out there. In the same way, if you're famous and
you don't want to be photographed – you have two options: don't go outside, or
only go out with a bag over your head. It's not rocket science, case closed.
Therefore,
as the media circus continues to condemn things they desperately want to
publish, but are too afraid too – we here at Channel 8 Corp can hold our heads
high. We have given the people what they want – and as you can see, the ethical
foundations of our business are solid and unshaken by this madness.
If you have
any questions, you're clearly too stupid to understand common sense.
(www.guardian.co.uk)
No comments:
Post a Comment